Tuesday, April 5, 2011

Spell Levels Are Broken

Why is no-one willing to admit this?

Everything else using the term "level" in Dungeons and Dragons makes sense. A third level character has three hit dice. A third level monster is typically found on the third level of a Dungeon. The third level of the dungeon is found beneath levels one and two.

So why does a third level wizard get one second level spell?

This really should not be that hard to fix. Simply take the first level spells, separate them, fairly evenly, between weaker and stronger spells (perhaps putting the combat spells in the stronger spell category) and re-label the stronger first level spells "level two spells". A first level magic user selects a spell from the weaker 1st level spell list. When the magic user reaches 2nd level, she can take a spell from either the first or second level spell lists.

Same with former second level spells. Separate them, and re-label the weaker as third level and stronger as fourth level spells. The 3rd level magic user takes a spell from the 3rd level spell list, and when she makes it to fourth level, takes one from the 1/2 list, and one from the 3/4 list.

The same applies to third level spells, which become fifth and sixth level spells, and so on, until we reach the ninth level spells, which are separated and become levels 17 and 18, respectively.

I'd think it wiser to downgrade the weak 2nd level to new level 2, weak 3rd level to new level 4 and so on. You'd see a lot more TPK and dissatisfied magic users at level 1 otherwise. Maybe the weak level 1 spells could be downgraded to cantrips or at-will powers? (c'mon, why would anyone memorize Erase?)

I find this hard to explain to newcomers as well. Monte Cook did this in his Books of Experimental Might for 3rd ed D&D, I think. At the time I thought it was an awesome idea. If I were to rewrite the rules, I'd consider it. But as a player and referee it just seems like too much work. :)

It is counterintuitive, especially for newer players, as Alex suggests.

To make it simpler still, a very bold soul could draw up a list along these lines for discussion, with the new divisions renamed for clarity, and the whole thing titled 'The OSR Initiate Spell List' or similar.

It's a blind spot. It's also one of the things that, if fixed, would probably wreck backwards compatibility with any product with an NPC spellcaster. And I don't know about you, but NPC spellcasters are one of the things I like letting someone else do the heavy lifting on.

Honestly, I like your solution. But what bothers me is that there're no 10th level spells. Logically there should be 10th level spells at 19th level to complete the next-spell-level-at-each-odd-level pattern.

From my point of view the whole oldschool gaming and retroclone rule designing are completely unnecessary. Because there are lot of games (for example odnd) and you don't have to publish n+1 vaersion. Why don't you redesign the original dnd?

If you can't get anyone to diverge each spell level, and you don't want to do all that work yourself, you could take a page from 4e and simply relabel the spell levels. Instead of having spell levels 1, 2, 3, etc., you'd instead have spell levels 1, 3, 5, etc.

A 5th level cleric had 4+1 HD while a Fighter had 5+1 and a M-U had 3.

Hit Dice got "fixed" in later editions but the spell levels didn't.

Spell levels being separate from direct association with class level also works when some character classes don't get spells at 1st level but get them later in life. Clerics in OD&D and "Basic" didn't get any spells as 1st level characters. In AD&D paladins don't get spells until they are 9th level and at 8th; should the first spells such a class get be some level other then 1st?

I happen to agree with this in principle, and have on several occasions tried to do exactly this or some variation of it. I've even tried to keep the existing level system but re-slot spells more logically power-wise. I always give up because

It's also one of the things that, if fixed, would probably wreck backwards compatibility with any product with an NPC spellcaster.

It's not quite a game-changer like doing away with levels and making everything skill-based, or doing away with hit points and replacing it with some other wound system, but it affects a heck of lot more than going to a single saving throw system or ascending AC, for instance. It wouldn't be an on-the-fly adjustment.

Spell levels aren't broken, if you look at them as the relative threshold of difficulty required to make the initial contact or to get a satisfactory reaction from the spell so as to successfully acquire it...which is an approach taht we've had some fun with. Guess we'll have to get around to posting some details on this...

The only time I've come across confusion over this issue was when I had a new player who was confusing caster level with spell level.

One of my big complaints with the D&D spell system was also touched on in this post though. It has always irked me that a player can't cast a Fireball until they get access to level 3 spells, and then when they get access to level 4 and 5 spells, the Fireball is still only a level 3 spell.

For our group, I've started rewriting a lot of the more common spells to have variable caster levels. For example, Fireball can be prepared/cast as a level 1 spell, but it does less damage and has a much smaller radius. It could also be cast as a level 5 spell, and do more damage with a larger radius. It's a little more math, but definitely worth it in my opinion.